The broad answer to that question is, "yes, there are direct payments to citizens". The broad effects are mainly what you see: armies of expats doing >90% of the work, most of whom are little more than indentured labor from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Philippines, etc. The actual citizens have little incentive to work, leading to overcorrection programs like Emiratization, which end up a couple of different ways: no-show "jobs" and jobs done very, very poorly by people who probably would provide better value by not showing up. There has been a recent, very encouraging trend, though, where women have been encouraged to work these jobs. Boy, do they work, by and large. They make mistakes, but it's not for lack of effort or carelessness. The problem is scale and continuing skill-building. In more populous places like KSA, though, the payments are diminishing and there's a huge glut of young Saudis with nothing to do. It will be the eventual downfall of the Kingdom. They can't import nearly enough labor to keep the locals happy. They're in danger of blowing up big time
I have read articles about it, but I don't think I have seen clear scientific studies about it, I would imagine unless the governments do not want the data to be collected, it would have lots of useful information or at least warnings on what NOT to do.
I imagine there are studies. Some have probably been commissioned to find what the governments want them to find.
It didn't stop them from getting a job, either. I think that's a pretty shallow definition of "happiness." Guaranteeing a basic level of economic security could very well be a legitimate function of government.
I don’t think it will be, personally. Everything about it seems too utopian and there’s a bunch of factors to account for. Cost of living for one, there’s a difference on what you can afford in say Detroit and a place in the middle of nowhere. I can see it working in say Finland, a country similar in size to California and nowhere near close in population.
And a way, way, way, way, way more homogeneous population. And a pretty strict Law of Jante thing going on.
So the private sector should do this then. The invisible hand of the marketplace and all that. Of course, the private sector always does everything way better than the Gub-Mint ever could, so it makes perfect sense. Let me call up some of my venture capitalist buddies and see what we can come up with!
I have not seen studies on what type of "free money" makes people happier, private or public. If a bank makes a $1,000 error in your favor or the IRS makes a $1,000 error in your favor, which one makes you happier?
UBI will get more examination as we start bleeding jobs to automation. IMHO I think that government should do their best to guarantee optimum employment levels and that probably will include measures increasing wages, regulating automation (and taxing it) and providing some sort of subsidy/Basic Income. A simple answer in the short term, is to increase minimum wages to make a single income family viable.
All that, plus I'm guessing a lower birth rate. I also wonder if there's a ceiling above which UBI stops being a source of economic security-slash-launching pad, and starts to become an actual detriment to self-motivation or social improvement. Well I don't "wonder" at all, I'm SURE of it. I just wonder how a society determined to proceed would establish it. A society where nobody has to worry about paying for child care while trying to go to college as an adult is a healthy one IMHO; a society where nobody has the motivation to go to college as an adult because what's the point of working--not so much.
Money might not buy happiness but it has its uses, as recognized by Randy Newman: They say that money Can't buy love in this world But it'll get you A half pound of cocaine And a sixteen year old girl And a great big long limousine On a hot September night Now that may not be love But it is all right
Since humans discovered agriculture, we've tied work to food. In the foreseeable future, there won't be enough work. So we need to change the basic structure of society. I think UBI is probably inevitable in the long term but I'm curious to see what the various studies happening now will show.
I can see two alternative endings here: 1. Back in the 1980s, I remember seeing a movie about a kid getting a basketball scholarship (don't recall the name of the movie) and the job he was paid to do, was to wet the lawn, which was already automated. So, I'd expect a lot of "jobs" to be created along those lines. 2. We can limit automation. Much in the form proposed in "Brave New World", you don't want a large idle population, even if you can do all automatically, you keep enough jobs, organize the economy in a way where most people get decent pay for 8 hours, a month vacation per year and enough leisure time on a daily basis.
I think Le Francoise are going 30-35 hour weeks with over a month paid vacation. Oh sh!t, just learned the Netherlands is doing 27 and aiming at 21. Amsterdam looks extremely attractive now.
You know how this is going to work. 1) Republicans point to The Netherlands as an example of socialism gone bad. It will be ruined! 2) American white working-class voters eat up that message. We had better work 50 hours per week and be grateful, otherwise we'll all go bankrupt as they are in The Netherlands. 3) One generation later, The Netherlands is doing just fine and its citizens are happy. Meanwhile, the American white working-class has seen its share of income decline further. 4) Republicans point to The Netherlands as an example of socialism gone bad. It will be ruined. Rinse, repeat.
Depends on how much money you have. Didn't some creepy rich guy in Florida just get away with doing this sort of thing for years. I don't remember the name, but you probably know who I mean. (Googling "creepy Florida man" would get me too many hits.)